Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1an732-0005ft-TR for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 16:08:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1an732-0004sD-F4 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 16:08:16 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1an731-0004r5-PN for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 16:08:15 +0000 Received: from smtp-auth.no-ip.com ([8.23.224.61] helo=out.smtp-auth.no-ip.com) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1an72x-0001Ir-B2 for pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 16:08:15 +0000 X-No-IP: alvh.no-ip.org@noip-smtp X-Report-Spam-To: abuse@no-ip.com Received: from alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (unknown [200.83.202.40]) (Authenticated sender: alvh.no-ip.org@noip-smtp) by smtp-auth.no-ip.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9A364400C74; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6C3145E7; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:08:01 -0300 (CLT) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:08:01 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Michael Paquier Cc: Breen Hagan , PostgreSQL mailing lists Subject: Re: BUG #13755: pgwin32_is_service not checking if SECURITY_SERVICE_SID is disabled Message-ID: <20160404160801.GA186687@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-bugs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-bugs-owner@postgresql.org Michael Paquier wrote: > This is not resolved yet, this just fell from my radar and I recall > that I spent some time thinking about the consequences and whereabouts > of using either SE_GROUP_ENABLED or SE_GROUP_USE_FOR_DENY_ONLY, > without actually reaching a conclusion. I think that the patch would > be straight-forward. But it needs a bit of review from the author > (Hi!) and some extra input would be welcome. I guess I could try to > look at that again.. That won't be this week for sure though. Bump. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs